Posted on 12/04/2005 6:39:30 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
You think seniors are confused about picking a prescription-drug plan under the new Medicare benefit scheduled to take effect January 1? Try listening to the debate on Capitol Hill over it.
Liberal lawmakers are defining the single largest expansion of a federal entitlement program in 40 years as some sort of unrestrained free-market experiment. If only.
But by portraying it as such, liberals are unfairly tarnishing the notion that market principles such as competition, choice and ownership work in the health sector.
According to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), Seniors are confused and scared because they have a series of complicated decisions to make. Her constituents must wade through 47 separate prescription drug plans offered by 18 companies and these plans all have different premiums, copays, and lists of covered drugs.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.) agreed: It is all this choice that is causing the problem. Far better, he asserted, to model the drug benefit on Medicares one-size-fits-all hospital and physician coverage. Sometimes, he mused, simplicity is better than choice.
Media outlets have reinforced this assault on competition by interviewing legions of confused seniors. I shudder when I think of it, one senior confided, How do you pick? One recent poll confirmed that the overwhelming majority of seniors share that feeling. Nearly three-quarters said that the prospect of having at least 40 different drug plans to choose from makes it confusing and difficult to pick the best plan.
Doughnut Hole
Nationwide, private insurance companies are offering seniors a staggering level of choice2,940 plans in all. Medicares top official, Mark McClellan, argues that this cornucopia of consumer freedom stimulates competition that lowers costs and helps consumers: The advantage of having this range of choices is that you can focus on the kind of coverage you want.
McClellan oversaw the drafting of the regulations that govern the new benefit and seemed determined to use every bit of his regulatory discretion to give seniors more options. He even went so far as to allow insurers to eliminate the much-derided doughnut hole (the curious feature that eliminates coverage for drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100) and let plans offer generics in lieu of nothing. There are at least five plans in every state that will offer this alternative.
Free-market health reformers, who spent the last two years denouncing the new benefit as an unaffordable $8.7 trillion universal entitlement, can be forgiven if, after reading this, they are as confused as those hapless seniors.
What, after all, is all this talk about a wide array of choices among dozens of competing private plans? Since when were these plans permitted to compete with one another and charge vastly different amounts for premiums, co-payments and deductibles, or cover different sets of drugs? Who figured out a way to avoid the political trap of the doughnut hole? And why are there no price controls or other limits on the drugs these plans can offer?
Siren Song
My colleague Robert Moffit, a leading critic of the plan, dismisses all this as socialism with a free-market face. Yes, he says, McClellan has mitigated some of the new laws worst features, but:
Indeed, picking pharmaceutical favorites is already in vogue. After an intense lobbying campaign, the House watered down its effort to give governors increased flexibility to reduce runaway Medicaid drug costs.
While the House voted to bar governors from steering Medicaid patients to the least expensive option for antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs, it granted this flexibility for all other categories of pharmaceuticals.
If seniors ultimately turn against the new benefit, the fear is that they will attribute their frustration to the laws free market face and be more receptive to the siren song of socialized medicine.
That's an odd pro-life argument. Oh, wait. Wrong thread.
I love it when they show their true colors. Life is pretty simple in Cuba, comrade
Proving once again (as if another example was necessary) that Republicans can NEVER out-pander the Slave Party. Trying to buy senior votes with a new entitlement was the second dumbest thing this administration has done (next to Hispandering).
That is the understaement of the decade. If memory serves, Kennedy was the author. And W signed the bill.
Whatever happened to times prior to LBJ's socialist medical plans?
I truly believe that this country is going down the tubes at an exponential rate in terms of the government running our lives.
Nomex and Kevlar are in place. Purchased by myself, not the Federal Government.
Anytime there is a Govment give away it's got a socialist undertone...sheesh
All this variety shows me that noone had accurate data to design a benefit. Market research is necessary, but congress doesn't know how to do it. And, I am content that Walmart and Walgreens can do the best job of negotiating low prices.
But, the gist of all this is, everyone is responsible for what their lives are, will become. If you are ill prepared for the future, you will have nothing in the future. IF YOU ARE COUNTING ON SOCIALIST SECURITY AND THE IMPERIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO BE YOUR NANNY, THEN EXPECT TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING DIRT POOR, STANDING IN LONG LINES FOR THOSE SOCIALIST BENEFITS YOU HAVE. My military pension, my 401k plan, will add to it the .27 cents I will probably get from socialist security. So, seniors that did not, do not, will not prepare themselves, have no one to blame but themselves.
According to Bolschevik Barbara Boxer (Sen., D.-Calif.), Seniors are confused and scared because they have a series of complicated decisions to make. Her constituents must wade through 47 separate prescription drug plans offered by 18 companies and these plans all have different premiums, copays, and lists of covered drugs. [pro-choice?]
Senior citizens are my peer group and we aren't "scared."
Bolschevik Barbara Boxer must be "confused." Or....
Bolschevik Barbara is shilling in advance for Hillary Clinton's socialized medicine scheme.
*
I guess seniors are also incapable of picking a long distance company or an internet service for similar reasons. They somehow managed to win WWII, but I can see where this would be way beyond them.....LOL.
New Drug Benefit Has Socialist Downside
Imagine that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.